A. There was no intention to mislead the defendant about facts and to threaten the victim.

피고인은 피해자에게 자신의 언짢은 감정을 일시적으로 표현한 것일 뿐이고, 공포심을 일으킬 정도의 구체적인 해악을 고지하지 않았다.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation, generally notifies a person who has become the other party of harm sufficient to cause fear. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and degree of friendship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). For the establishment of a crime of intimidation, there must be a concrete threat of harm and injury to the extent that it may be deemed at least possible.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do70 delivered on March 10, 1998). A threat of harm and injury in a crime of intimidation may be a threat of harm and injury, as the case may be, through ordinary language or language.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146 Decided September 10, 2009). B.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was found to have notified the victim of the specific harm to the extent sufficient and possible to have caused fears with the intent of threatening the victim.

① The Defendant attempted to change the lane while driving a private taxi on the day of the instant case to the victim on the ground that the victim, who was driving on the next lane, did not yield the right of way.